tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6245381193993153721.post755112433146083437..comments2024-03-28T17:08:15.784-07:00Comments on Social Democracy for the 21st Century: A Realist Alternative to the Modern Left: Mass Immigration is the Last Fraud of NeoliberalismLord Keyneshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06556863604205200159noreply@blogger.comBlogger42125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6245381193993153721.post-69236624697756365682016-10-26T19:58:25.253-07:002016-10-26T19:58:25.253-07:00Excellent article. One effect of mass immigration,...Excellent article. One effect of mass immigration, rarely commented on, is the effect of 'cheap' labour on innovation. It stands to reason that if cheap labour is available, manufacturers (and indeed, even farmers) will not invest in new technology to raise productivity. it could well be that this goes some way to explaining the slow pace of technological development (aside from IT) over the past 30 years. daveofoznoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6245381193993153721.post-77883945914574738592016-03-27T03:01:09.218-07:002016-03-27T03:01:09.218-07:00Do you have any posts on reviewing the existing li...Do you have any posts on reviewing the existing literature on the effects of migration on unemployment, wages, etc?Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00367306343563224703noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6245381193993153721.post-44535838996429763382016-03-26T12:05:54.595-07:002016-03-26T12:05:54.595-07:00ridiculous?
that's why its been successful in...ridiculous?<br /><br />that's why its been successful in U.S Germany japan South Korea Taiwan Singapore?<br /><br />that's why this so called Asian tigers been able to become prosperous first world countries while other countries which listened to austerity fan boys from imf ruined their economies?<br /><br />your neoclassical ridiculous assumption don't working in the real world sorry.disequilibriumhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09760922141392402211noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6245381193993153721.post-50120733921119598012016-03-26T07:57:46.143-07:002016-03-26T07:57:46.143-07:00"Is there any limit to the mass immigration y..."Is there any limit to the mass immigration you'd like to see? If you brought 1 million, 10 million or 100 million people to the UK in 2016 would you see any severe problems with this?"<br /><br />I think you'd see many more people come into the UK. Fortunately, prices ration resources, so you'd see natural regulation in how fast people move and where they move.<br /><br />"Avrey actually this people can help their economies if their government will use infant industry substitution and healthy fiscal policy.<br /><br />The arguement of productivity arise in highly specialized advanced economies which is not the case with third world ubderveloped evonomies"<br /><br />Infant industry substitution is not a thing, there's the infant industry argument, and the import substitution industrialization, both of which are ridiculous.Avéryhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05679990462327210226noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6245381193993153721.post-73572722391033700972016-03-26T07:23:05.525-07:002016-03-26T07:23:05.525-07:00Of course, if your aim in economic development is ...Of course, if your aim in economic development is not to maximise per capita GDP or real wages and increase the per capita wealth of a country but to just keep wages low, then economically speaking you may be in favour of mass immigration or open borders. Lord Keyneshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06556863604205200159noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6245381193993153721.post-15264016053718249352016-03-26T07:17:47.807-07:002016-03-26T07:17:47.807-07:00"LK even your own points about 19th century U...<i>"LK even your own points about 19th century US are not about efficiency of resource allocation"</i><br /><br />No, Ken B. In the long run, devoting resources to manufacturing and paying somewhat more for such goods in the short term pays off in a very big way in the long run. This is precisely about long-run efficiency of resource allocation.Lord Keyneshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06556863604205200159noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6245381193993153721.post-38822331055456258122016-03-26T07:15:17.268-07:002016-03-26T07:15:17.268-07:00"LK, as I have said often your economic argum...<i>"LK, as I have said often your economic arguments against mass immigration are pretty weak. It's social , cultural and political arguments that are stronger."</i><br /><br />No, Ken B, they would apply very strongly to a libertarian, Misesian or classical liberal economy with no welfare state, if it had higher wages and high per capita GDP, since there would be severe race to the bottom as noted (and celebrated) by Rothbard. <br /><br />In fact, in such a world it would be brutal for domestic citizens who could be very easily replaced with foreign workers.<br /><br />Are we to assume that you would be fine with this?:<br /><br />[Ken B arrives at work]<br /><b>Ken B's boss:</b> "Hi Ken!, How are you?"<br /><b>Ken B:</b> "Great! Looking forward to another day of work!"<br /><b>Ken B's boss:</b> "Great!.... Oh, by the way, you're fired. We're replacing you with an immigrant who will work for $3 an hour.<br /><b>Ken B</b>: "Awesome! I'll clean my desk out right now!"<br />[Ken B heads to the poor house.]<br />Lord Keyneshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06556863604205200159noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6245381193993153721.post-25902338959366349902016-03-26T06:47:32.829-07:002016-03-26T06:47:32.829-07:00LK even your own points about 19th century US are ...LK even your own points about 19th century US are not about efficiency of resource allocation. They are social and political points.Ken Bhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08207803092348071005noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6245381193993153721.post-27047083166586033512016-03-26T06:44:59.150-07:002016-03-26T06:44:59.150-07:00LK, as I have said often your economic arguments a...LK, as I have said often your economic arguments against mass immigration are pretty weak. It's social , cultural and political arguments that are stronger. Plus of course there is a huge incentive to immigrate to a welfare state that exceeds the wage incentives of the market.<br />You can have 2 of democracy, welfare state, mass immigration. That's a political argument. Ken Bhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08207803092348071005noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6245381193993153721.post-7034373641830992942016-03-26T03:44:06.815-07:002016-03-26T03:44:06.815-07:00Avrey actually this people can help their economie...Avrey actually this people can help their economies if their government will use infant industry substitution and healthy fiscal policy.<br /><br />The arguement of productivity arise in highly specialized advanced economies which is not the case with third world ubderveloped evonomiesdisequilibriumhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09760922141392402211noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6245381193993153721.post-28398078344125121022016-03-26T03:29:48.105-07:002016-03-26T03:29:48.105-07:00(1) "A good example is that motor vehicles pr...(1) <i>"A good example is that motor vehicles produced by British Leyland in the 1970s were of lower quality the competition from Japan and Germany."</i><br /><br />In terms of the difference here, it sounds grossly exaggerated to me. Moreover, none of the destructive Thatcherite program was necessary to address the issue of making British industry build better quality cars. <br /><br />(2) <i>"I think Apple i-phones are manufactured in China, so your 'flood of cheap crap' may not be wholly accurate."</i><br /><br />My statement does not contradict the additional assertion that we also get well made stuff from China. What I said is we get a lot of cheap inferior crap. This is correct.<br /><br />(3) <i>"Thatcher years enabled necessary supply-side reforms that improved the competitiveness of British industry, "</i><br /><br />And this is outrageously wrong. You quite clearly cannot fathom that alternative policies to help or modernise industries could have been done without Thatcherism. <br /><br />In fact your reference to goods imported from Japan (to which we can add South Korea and Taiwan) underscores the outrageous ignorance of people like and how you live in an ideological bubble. Tell me: how did Japan, South Korea and Taiwan industrialise and get world beating industries? <br /><br />If you'd care to get out of your ideological bubble, you know it happened by massive state intervention and industrial policy, not by holy free trade/free market market theological nonsense. Nor is this observation anti-capitalist because our real world capitalism and its success is heavily bound up with the state. <br /><br />Start with these books:<br /><br />Johnson, Chalmers. 1982. <i>MITI and the Japanese Miracle: The Growth of Industrial Policy, 1925-1975</i>. Stanford University Press, Stanford, Calif. <br /><br />Erik S. Reinert. 2007. <i>How Rich Countries Got Rich, and Why Poor Countries Stay Poor</i>. Carroll & Graf, New York. <br /><br />-----<br />A final observation: you people think you are the defenders of capitalism, but you are not. <br /><br />If you had your way, you'd smash up our effective real world capitalism and destroy Western civilisation. If you had had your way in 2008, and imposed massive austerity, the world would have been plunged into a great depression worse than the 1930s. We'd be on the road to far left dictatorship or fascism, as in the 1930s, because you people don't understand capitalism or basic economic theory, and you'd cock everything up.<br /><br />The greatest defender of capitalism in the 20th century was John Maynard Keynes. Any rational and competent defender of capitalism would know this.<br />Lord Keyneshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06556863604205200159noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6245381193993153721.post-67688782821693826232016-03-26T02:55:47.724-07:002016-03-26T02:55:47.724-07:00"While I've not looked into this issue in..."While I've not looked into this issue in detail, I would be very surprised indeed if this much of an issue in the 1970s. And, if we are on this issue, why is a flood of cheap inferior crap from China any better?"<br /><br />A good example is that motor vehicles produced by British Leyland in the 1970s were of lower quality the competition from Japan and Germany. A success story of the 1980s was the de-merger and privatisation of Jaguar Cars from British Leyland, which developed new models that were well regarded and competitive the market.<br /><br />I think Apple i-phones are manufactured in China, so your 'flood of cheap crap' may not be wholly accurate. Not that consumers shouldn't buy cheaper goods of inferior quality if they wish, as long as they can choose freely.<br /><br />"You sound like an unrepentant Thatcherite ideologue to me. "<br /><br />Don't be silly, there are many in the political centre who accept the Thatcher years enabled necessary supply-side reforms that improved the competitiveness of British industry, albeit at considerable social cost. This is a fairly mainstream opinion among UK economists and political commentators.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6245381193993153721.post-12761333501962681782016-03-26T01:02:05.637-07:002016-03-26T01:02:05.637-07:00Just tell me this Avery:
Is there any limit to t...Just tell me this Avery: <br /><br />Is there any limit to the mass immigration you'd like to see? If you brought 1 million, 10 million or 100 million people to the UK in 2016 would you see any severe problems with this?Lord Keyneshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06556863604205200159noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6245381193993153721.post-79052107218875306952016-03-26T01:00:40.709-07:002016-03-26T01:00:40.709-07:00(1) I did not say that the "infant industry a...(1) I did not say that the "infant industry argument" applied to British industry post WW2. This is just a straw man. <br /><br />As it happens, however, the UK needed and <a href="http://socialdemocracy21stcentury.blogspot.com/2010/06/early-british-industrial-revolution-and.html" rel="nofollow">did impose massive tariffs to build its cotton textile industry in the late 18th and 19th centuries.</a><br /><br />(2) as for quality of goods, I'm not saying that isn't important. This is just another stupid straw man. <br /><br />While I've not looked into this issue in detail, I would be very surprised indeed if this much of an issue in the 1970s. And, if we are on this issue, why is a flood of cheap inferior crap from China any better?<br /><br />(3) <i>"Another aspect of Thatcherism was a welcoming environment for world class foreign companies that were thinking of investing in the UK, such as Nissan. Do you think that was a bad thing too?"</i><br /><br />The UK could have had more FDI with subsidies or tax breaks without Thatcher's lunatic monetarism, her recessions, her high unemployment, her destruction of British industry, her destruction of the coal industry, etc. etc. <br /><br />(4) <i>"but the UK economy was in much better shape in the 1990s than in the 1970s."</i><br /><br />hahaha.. "in much better shape". After massive economic and social destruction?<br /><br />You sound like an unrepentant Thatcherite ideologue to me. <br /><br />Look at you. I've given you in my original comments above good evidence of the devastating effect of Thatcherism. But you will defend it at any cost. This is a fanatical, irrational, reflexive ideology at work. <br />Lord Keyneshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06556863604205200159noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6245381193993153721.post-79119186881040291782016-03-26T00:41:53.358-07:002016-03-26T00:41:53.358-07:00The 'infant industry argument' can't p...The 'infant industry argument' can't possibly apply to British industry post WW2, although it's true to say that government support wasn't always a bad thing (e.g. in defence and aerospace).<br /><br />However, the missing element of your analysis of the pre-Thatcher economy is quality. Quality of goods and services, quality of infrastructure, quality of housing stock. If you focus only on GDP figures, you might come to the conclusion that the Soviet Union outperformed the West during 'the golden age of capitalism'.<br /><br />I know people who lived through the 70s and 80s, and they have confirmed that the quality of consumer goods and many services improved markedly during the Thatcher era. <br /><br />Another aspect of Thatcherism was a welcoming environment for world class foreign companies that were thinking of investing in the UK, such as Nissan. Do you think that was a bad thing too?<br /><br />Of course there were great social costs such as high unemployment and a higher crime rate, but the UK economy was in much better shape in the 1990s than in the 1970s.<br />Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6245381193993153721.post-57389052739921998302016-03-25T22:35:08.748-07:002016-03-25T22:35:08.748-07:00"No, there is not. The case for mass immigrat..."No, there is not. The case for mass immigration when unemployment is high and wages stagnating is virtually non-existent. <br /><br />Not to mention that if you take highly skilled workers you are taking them and brain draining the Third world."<br /><br />1. You are forgetting that these people are human. By saying this, the implications for these workers is poverty or worse.<br /><br />2. This completely ignores the fact that on net, we gain from immigration.<br /><br />3. Immigrants are currently living in areas where they are not even currently capable of producing much of anything. Moving them to areas where they can be productive makes the world better off.<br /><br />4. There really isn't much brain drain going on in the first place. As previously stated, keeping these human beings in their home countries makes them less productive, and makes the world worse off.Avéryhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05679990462327210226noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6245381193993153721.post-21196979517049764292016-03-25T22:27:51.314-07:002016-03-25T22:27:51.314-07:00Typo:
"bizarre contradiction?"Typo:<br /><br />"bizarre <b>contradiction</b>?"Lord Keyneshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06556863604205200159noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6245381193993153721.post-29069601974538552022016-03-25T22:27:14.816-07:002016-03-25T22:27:14.816-07:00Also, assuming you accept some of the economic arg...Also, assuming you accept some of the economic arguments for labour market protectionism and curbing mass immigration, can't you see how militantly rejecting the benefits of trade protectionism is a bizarre contraction?<br /><br />You accept the possible benefits of labour market protectionism, but not trade protectionism?Lord Keyneshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06556863604205200159noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6245381193993153721.post-23560527741474133382016-03-25T22:25:23.890-07:002016-03-25T22:25:23.890-07:00Libertarian insanity.Libertarian insanity.Lord Keyneshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06556863604205200159noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6245381193993153721.post-62572314116642630532016-03-25T22:24:28.318-07:002016-03-25T22:24:28.318-07:00"There are so many compelling reasons to let ...<i>"There are so many compelling reasons to let immigrants in, "</i><br /><br />No, there is not. The case for mass immigration when unemployment is high and wages stagnating is virtually non-existent. <br /><br />Not to mention that if you take highly skilled workers you are taking them and brain draining the Third world.<br /><br />https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gYnQjDlCeXULord Keyneshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06556863604205200159noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6245381193993153721.post-43659514070980748742016-03-25T22:20:48.098-07:002016-03-25T22:20:48.098-07:00"you ignore that Britain was the sick man of ...<i>"you ignore that Britain was the sick man of Europe circa 1975. "</i><br /><br />This is mostly a myth. In what respect was it a sick man?:<br /><br />(1) the Dutch disease? I've already explained this and what the solution was.<br /><br />(2) stagflation? This was a world wide phenomenon and after 1973 driven by the oil shocks. There wasn't anything uniquely British about that.<br /><br />(3) wage price-spirals during the oil shocks? Yes, but once again this was a world wide phenomenon, and monetarism wasn't the answer.<br /><br />(4) was there excessive union power? Yes, but this could have been dealt with without all the neoliberalism insanity of Thatcherism.<br /><br />(5) was there high unemployment? Actually not that bad at all, and nothing like the catastrophic unemployment under Thatcher.<br />Lord Keyneshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06556863604205200159noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6245381193993153721.post-17515303430647144682016-03-25T22:15:14.573-07:002016-03-25T22:15:14.573-07:00"One of the things you ignore is the impressi...<i>"One of the things you ignore is the impressive and sustained reduction of poverty in the third world."</i><br /><br />There was very impressive per capita GDP growth in the Keynesian era in the Third world from the 1945 to 1970s without the extreme and deleterious free trade model imposed on the West since the 1980s. It is well known that growth for most Third world countries slowed after the 1980s. <br /><br />The most successful region of the Third/second world where development happened and there was massive succuss: the state-directed, protectionist, industrial policy models of development in South Korea, Taiwan, Japan.<br /><br />Also, you must distinguish between managed trade (often very good) with FDI and free trade (often not good). You can have more and more managed trade with protectionism. There is no contradiction here.<br />Lord Keyneshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06556863604205200159noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6245381193993153721.post-79342324522897103982016-03-25T22:09:26.295-07:002016-03-25T22:09:26.295-07:00"Interstate tariffs ? No, one huge free trade...<i>"Interstate tariffs ? No, one huge free trade zone, right? "</i><br /><br />And within the **same** nation, which is ruled by the **same** government that imposes the **same** fiscal, monetary or regulatory policies, and the **same** labour market regulations and the *same* environmental standards, and where there is centralised wealth redistribution.<br /><br />This doesn't refute what I said, Ken B, if anything it underlines it.Lord Keyneshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06556863604205200159noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6245381193993153721.post-6616467851070068122016-03-25T14:28:19.519-07:002016-03-25T14:28:19.519-07:00Interstate tariffs ? No, one huge free trade zone,...Interstate tariffs ? No, one huge free trade zone, right? Ken Bhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08207803092348071005noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6245381193993153721.post-77838964705880862812016-03-25T14:25:45.951-07:002016-03-25T14:25:45.951-07:00Indeed. I have seen libertarians, not Murphy s cre...Indeed. I have seen libertarians, not Murphy s crew but serious ones like David Henderson, argue that ghettos are a good solution to problems with integration! Ken Bhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08207803092348071005noreply@blogger.com